IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.29408 of 2014 BETWEEN Smt. Sumathi Mandal AND ... PETITIONER The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner claims that she is the purchaser of the land to an extent of Ac.1-00 in Survey No.5/130 at Nazrul Nagar Village, Sirpur Kaghaznagar Mandal, Adilabad District, under registered sale deed of the year 2001. She claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the said land and she has raised small construction as per the permission given by the Gram Panchayat and house tax is also collected from the petitioner. The present writ petition, however, is directed against the notice issued by the Tahsildar, respondent No.4, alleging violation of Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 2007. The said notice, dated 04.09.2014, states that the original assignee of Ac.3-00 of land in the same survey number was one Jogesh Bouri and after his death his daughter appears to have sold the land to the petitioner. Petitioner questions the said notice in the writ petition.
3. Though I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, no ground whatsoever is made out warranting entertainment of this writ petition as the land being an assigned land initially appears to be not in controversy. In any case, it is the respondent No.4, who is competent to take action under the aforesaid Act, if there is any violation of the Act. Moreover, petitioner was merely given a notice to show cause, which by itself may not be said to prejudice the petitioner. It is, therefore, open for the petitioner to submit her explanation to the said notice and raise all the contentions, which she wishes to raise in support of her defence. Since the time fixed under the impugned notice appears to be already over, petitioner is granted one more week time from today to submit her representation before respondent No.4 and respondent No.4 is directed to consider the said explanation, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders.
It is made clear that till passing of the appropriate orders by respondent No.4, as directed above, petitioner’s possession and enjoyment over the land, in question, shall not be disturbed.
With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 26, 2014 LMV